GRUBER, Fabian M.;RIXEN, Daniel J.. Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces. Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering, [S.l.], v. 62, n.7-8, p. 452-462, june 2018. ISSN 0039-2480. Available at: <https://www.sv-jme.eu/article/evaluation-of-substructure-reduction-techniques-with-fixed-and-free-interfaces/>. Date accessed: 20 dec. 2024. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5545/sv-jme.2016.3735.
Gruber, F., & Rixen, D. (2016). Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces. Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 62(7-8), 452-462. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5545/sv-jme.2016.3735
@article{sv-jmesv-jme.2016.3735,
author = {Fabian M. Gruber and Daniel J. Rixen},
title = {Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces},
journal = {Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering},
volume = {62},
number = {7-8},
year = {2016},
keywords = {dynamic substructuring; component mode synthesis; model order reduction; dual assembly; Craig-Bampton method; free interface method},
abstract = {Substructure reduction techniques are efficient methods to reduce the size of large models used to ana-lyze the dynamical behavior of complex structures. The most popular approach is a fixed interface method, the Craig-Bampton method (1968), which is based on fixed interface vibration modes and inter-face constraint modes. In contrast, free interface methods employing free interface vibration modes together with attachment modes are also used, e.g. MacNeal's method (1971) and Rubin's method (1975). The methods mentioned so far assemble the substructures using interface displacements (primal assembly). The dual Craig-Bampton method (2004) uses the same ingredients as the two aforementioned free interface methods, but assembles the substructures using interface forces (dual assembly). This method enforces only weak interface compatibility between the substructures, thereby avoiding inter-face locking problems as sometimes experienced in the primal assembly approaches using free interface modes. The dual Craig-Bampton method leads to simpler reduced matrices compared to other free inter-face methods and the reduced matrices are sparse, similar to the classical Craig-Bampton matrices. In this contribution we evaluate the primal (classical) formulation of the Craig-Bampton method, the MacNeal method, the Rubin method and the dual formulation of the Craig-Bampton method. The pre-sented theory and the comparison between the four substructuring methods will be illustrated on the Benfield truss, on a three-dimensional beam frame and on a two-dimensional solid plane stress problem.},
issn = {0039-2480}, pages = {452-462}, doi = {10.5545/sv-jme.2016.3735},
url = {https://www.sv-jme.eu/article/evaluation-of-substructure-reduction-techniques-with-fixed-and-free-interfaces/}
}
Gruber, F.,Rixen, D. 2016 June 62. Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces. Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering. [Online] 62:7-8
%A Gruber, Fabian M. %A Rixen, Daniel J. %D 2016 %T Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces %B 2016 %9 dynamic substructuring; component mode synthesis; model order reduction; dual assembly; Craig-Bampton method; free interface method %! Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces %K dynamic substructuring; component mode synthesis; model order reduction; dual assembly; Craig-Bampton method; free interface method %X Substructure reduction techniques are efficient methods to reduce the size of large models used to ana-lyze the dynamical behavior of complex structures. The most popular approach is a fixed interface method, the Craig-Bampton method (1968), which is based on fixed interface vibration modes and inter-face constraint modes. In contrast, free interface methods employing free interface vibration modes together with attachment modes are also used, e.g. MacNeal's method (1971) and Rubin's method (1975). The methods mentioned so far assemble the substructures using interface displacements (primal assembly). The dual Craig-Bampton method (2004) uses the same ingredients as the two aforementioned free interface methods, but assembles the substructures using interface forces (dual assembly). This method enforces only weak interface compatibility between the substructures, thereby avoiding inter-face locking problems as sometimes experienced in the primal assembly approaches using free interface modes. The dual Craig-Bampton method leads to simpler reduced matrices compared to other free inter-face methods and the reduced matrices are sparse, similar to the classical Craig-Bampton matrices. In this contribution we evaluate the primal (classical) formulation of the Craig-Bampton method, the MacNeal method, the Rubin method and the dual formulation of the Craig-Bampton method. The pre-sented theory and the comparison between the four substructuring methods will be illustrated on the Benfield truss, on a three-dimensional beam frame and on a two-dimensional solid plane stress problem. %U https://www.sv-jme.eu/article/evaluation-of-substructure-reduction-techniques-with-fixed-and-free-interfaces/ %0 Journal Article %R 10.5545/sv-jme.2016.3735 %& 452 %P 11 %J Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering %V 62 %N 7-8 %@ 0039-2480 %8 2018-06-27 %7 2018-06-27
Gruber, Fabian, & Daniel J. Rixen. "Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces." Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering [Online], 62.7-8 (2016): 452-462. Web. 20 Dec. 2024
TY - JOUR AU - Gruber, Fabian M. AU - Rixen, Daniel J. PY - 2016 TI - Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces JF - Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering DO - 10.5545/sv-jme.2016.3735 KW - dynamic substructuring; component mode synthesis; model order reduction; dual assembly; Craig-Bampton method; free interface method N2 - Substructure reduction techniques are efficient methods to reduce the size of large models used to ana-lyze the dynamical behavior of complex structures. The most popular approach is a fixed interface method, the Craig-Bampton method (1968), which is based on fixed interface vibration modes and inter-face constraint modes. In contrast, free interface methods employing free interface vibration modes together with attachment modes are also used, e.g. MacNeal's method (1971) and Rubin's method (1975). The methods mentioned so far assemble the substructures using interface displacements (primal assembly). The dual Craig-Bampton method (2004) uses the same ingredients as the two aforementioned free interface methods, but assembles the substructures using interface forces (dual assembly). This method enforces only weak interface compatibility between the substructures, thereby avoiding inter-face locking problems as sometimes experienced in the primal assembly approaches using free interface modes. The dual Craig-Bampton method leads to simpler reduced matrices compared to other free inter-face methods and the reduced matrices are sparse, similar to the classical Craig-Bampton matrices. In this contribution we evaluate the primal (classical) formulation of the Craig-Bampton method, the MacNeal method, the Rubin method and the dual formulation of the Craig-Bampton method. The pre-sented theory and the comparison between the four substructuring methods will be illustrated on the Benfield truss, on a three-dimensional beam frame and on a two-dimensional solid plane stress problem. UR - https://www.sv-jme.eu/article/evaluation-of-substructure-reduction-techniques-with-fixed-and-free-interfaces/
@article{{sv-jme}{sv-jme.2016.3735},
author = {Gruber, F., Rixen, D.},
title = {Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces},
journal = {Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering},
volume = {62},
number = {7-8},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.5545/sv-jme.2016.3735},
url = {https://www.sv-jme.eu/article/evaluation-of-substructure-reduction-techniques-with-fixed-and-free-interfaces/}
}
TY - JOUR AU - Gruber, Fabian M. AU - Rixen, Daniel J. PY - 2018/06/27 TI - Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces JF - Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering; Vol 62, No 7-8 (2016): Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering DO - 10.5545/sv-jme.2016.3735 KW - dynamic substructuring, component mode synthesis, model order reduction, dual assembly, Craig-Bampton method, free interface method N2 - Substructure reduction techniques are efficient methods to reduce the size of large models used to ana-lyze the dynamical behavior of complex structures. The most popular approach is a fixed interface method, the Craig-Bampton method (1968), which is based on fixed interface vibration modes and inter-face constraint modes. In contrast, free interface methods employing free interface vibration modes together with attachment modes are also used, e.g. MacNeal's method (1971) and Rubin's method (1975). The methods mentioned so far assemble the substructures using interface displacements (primal assembly). The dual Craig-Bampton method (2004) uses the same ingredients as the two aforementioned free interface methods, but assembles the substructures using interface forces (dual assembly). This method enforces only weak interface compatibility between the substructures, thereby avoiding inter-face locking problems as sometimes experienced in the primal assembly approaches using free interface modes. The dual Craig-Bampton method leads to simpler reduced matrices compared to other free inter-face methods and the reduced matrices are sparse, similar to the classical Craig-Bampton matrices. In this contribution we evaluate the primal (classical) formulation of the Craig-Bampton method, the MacNeal method, the Rubin method and the dual formulation of the Craig-Bampton method. The pre-sented theory and the comparison between the four substructuring methods will be illustrated on the Benfield truss, on a three-dimensional beam frame and on a two-dimensional solid plane stress problem. UR - https://www.sv-jme.eu/article/evaluation-of-substructure-reduction-techniques-with-fixed-and-free-interfaces/
Gruber, Fabian, AND Rixen, Daniel. "Evaluation of Substructure Reduction Techniques with Fixed and Free Interfaces" Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering [Online], Volume 62 Number 7-8 (27 June 2018)
Strojniški vestnik - Journal of Mechanical Engineering 62(2016)7-8, 452-462
© The Authors, CC-BY 4.0 Int. Change in copyright policy from 2022, Jan 1st.
Substructure reduction techniques are efficient methods to reduce the size of large models used to ana-lyze the dynamical behavior of complex structures. The most popular approach is a fixed interface method, the Craig-Bampton method (1968), which is based on fixed interface vibration modes and inter-face constraint modes. In contrast, free interface methods employing free interface vibration modes together with attachment modes are also used, e.g. MacNeal's method (1971) and Rubin's method (1975). The methods mentioned so far assemble the substructures using interface displacements (primal assembly). The dual Craig-Bampton method (2004) uses the same ingredients as the two aforementioned free interface methods, but assembles the substructures using interface forces (dual assembly). This method enforces only weak interface compatibility between the substructures, thereby avoiding inter-face locking problems as sometimes experienced in the primal assembly approaches using free interface modes. The dual Craig-Bampton method leads to simpler reduced matrices compared to other free inter-face methods and the reduced matrices are sparse, similar to the classical Craig-Bampton matrices. In this contribution we evaluate the primal (classical) formulation of the Craig-Bampton method, the MacNeal method, the Rubin method and the dual formulation of the Craig-Bampton method. The pre-sented theory and the comparison between the four substructuring methods will be illustrated on the Benfield truss, on a three-dimensional beam frame and on a two-dimensional solid plane stress problem.